“Despacito” singer Luis Fonsi just released a new music video for the upcoming anti-child trafficking film, “City of Dreams,” a signal that Hollywood could  The Puerto Rican recording artist posted a video of the song to almost 32 million subscribers on YouTube, including a caption that said he was “really proud of this one.” Fonsi said he was “honored to be part of a movie that has the power to change and save kids’ lives.” The music video is interspersed with scenes from the movie, which was inspired by real events. Per Rotten Tomatoes, the movie “follows Jesús, a young Mexican boy whose dreams of becoming a soccer star are shattered when he’s trafficked across the border and sold to a sweatshop making fast fashion in downtown Los Angeles.” The description says, “Thrust into a world of exploitation and despair, he’s forced to adhere to the grueling work schedule dictated by El Jefe, a boss who promises freedom for those who complete their quotas. Despite Jesús’ hellish existence, he finds solace in Elena, a girl who was similarly betrayed and sold into slavery. When she goes missing and another co-worker Carlitos is severely beaten, Jesús realizes that the only way to save himself and the others is to fight back, even if it costs him his life.” “City of Dreams” is scheduled to be released in theaters nationwide on August 30. Fonsi’s new single release comes on the heels of the massive success of “Sound of Freedom,” a film about child trafficking that outperformed expectations at the box office last summer. “Sound of Freedom” is based on a true story of Tim Ballard — played by actor Jim Caviezel — a federal agent who quits his job to rescue a young girl from sex slavery in South America. The Angel Studios film brought in $184 million at the box office against a $14 million production budget. Tickets for “Am I Racist?” are on sale NOW! Buy here for a theater near you. Commentators took Fonsi’s video as a sign that Hollywood is finally willing to speak out about child trafficking. “Hollywood is FINALLY waking up to child trafficking,” said radio host Chad Prather. More artists are associating themselves with films that have potentially controversial messages, including rap artist Bryson Gray coming out with the “Am I Racist?” single ahead of the nationwide release of Daily Wire host Matt Walsh’s new film of the same name. The film explores the grift of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and dives into how racism and anti-racism has morphed over the years. “Racism has a specific definition, but they keep trying to twist it to mean something else, like they do with gender, and that’s bearing false witness,” Gray told The Post Millennial. “Academics like to slap on the propaganda because it suits their agenda.” “It’s identity politics,” he continued. “And it’s funny because for the party that claims to be one of inclusion, it’s funny how much time they spend making a hyper-focus on these issues. Usually we judge people on their character, or their values, and that’s how I know if I can mix with someone.” “Am I Racist?” is scheduled to be in hundreds of theaters across the nation on September 13. Fans can purchase tickets to a showing near them at amiracist.com.

A retired Minnesota State Patrol lieutenant, John Nagel, has sharply criticized Governor Tim Walz for what he describes as the deliberate abandonment of Minneapolis during the 2020 George Floyd riots. In an interview with Fox News, Nagel, who served for 30 years, accused Walz of being anti-police and claimed the governor intentionally let Minneapolis burn as part of a broader agenda that reflects his disdain for law enforcement. Nagel's remarks come as Walz faces ongoing criticism from law enforcement officials and conservative commentators for his response to the riots, which saw widespread destruction across Minneapolis. Nagel argues that Walz's decision not to deploy the National Guard swiftly allowed the situation to spiral out of control, leading to millions of dollars in damage and the loss of trust in public safety among Minnesota's residents. The TRUTH!! Whoever didn’t get enough of 2020 riots should vote for Harris-Walz!! pic.twitter.com/MyGRaLrrgN — Hank (@HankishTwitZone) August 11, 2024 According to Nagel, Walz's hesitation was not just a failure of leadership but a calculated move aligned with his political ambitions. Nagel, who is now running for a seat in the Minnesota House as a Republican, claims that Walz's inaction was motivated by a desire to appease the far-left elements of his party, who were calling for defunding the police and radically restructuring public safety. The retired lieutenant's criticism extends beyond the events of 2020, highlighting what he sees as a pattern of anti-police sentiment from Walz and other Democratic leaders in the state. He pointed to the decision by the widow of Pope County Sheriff’s Deputy Josh Owen, who was killed in the line of duty, to exclude Walz from her husband's funeral—a move she said was due to the governor's lack of support for law enforcement. No, this is not a video from a war-torn country in the Middle East. This is the aftermath of the Minneapolis Riots when Minnesota Governor Tim Walz allowed it to burn four consecutive nights. This is the legacy of Kamala Harris’s new running mate. pic.twitter.com/s4qii8uUBc — Dustin Grage (@GrageDustin) August 6, 2024 Nagel's accusations echo broader Republican concerns that Walz's policies have led to an increase in violent crime and a general decline in public safety in Minnesota. GOP Representative Pete Stauber, who represents northern Minnesota, has similarly condemned Walz's handling of the riots, accusing him of betraying the citizens of Minneapolis by failing to protect their lives and properties. Stauber noted that Walz referred to the rioters' actions as "righteous anger," a statement that many Republicans believe signals the governor's sympathies lie with the rioters rather than the victims of the violence. These criticisms have gained renewed attention as Walz, now a Democratic vice-presidential nominee, campaigns on a platform that his opponents argue is out of touch with the realities of public safety concerns in Minnesota. The debate over Walz's record is likely to intensify as the 2024 election approaches, with Republicans like Nagel and Stauber positioning themselves as champions of law and order against what they see as Democratic failures. While Walz has defended his actions, stating that he worked to de-escalate the situation and prevent further violence, his critics remain unconvinced. They argue that his reluctance to take a firm stand during the riots has left a lasting scar on the state and raised serious questions about his ability to handle crises at the national level. As Minnesota continues to grapple with the aftermath of the 2020 riots and ongoing public safety challenges, Nagel's comments highlight the deep divisions within the state over how best to maintain order and protect its citizens. Whether these concerns will resonate with voters in the upcoming election remains to be seen, but they undoubtedly add a significant layer of controversy to Walz's political future. The post Retired Police Lieutenant Blasts Gov. Walz for ‘Surrendering’ Minneapolis to Rioters appeared first on The Conservative Brief.

Texas A&M University has come under intense scrutiny after revelations that its partnership with the Qatar Foundation granted the state-led organization substantial control over research operations at the university’s satellite campus in Doha. This partnership, which has been in place since the campus's opening in 2003, has raised serious questions about the security implications for U.S. interests, particularly given Qatar's connections to controversial entities like Hamas and Iran. According to reports, the Qatar Foundation, which is closely tied to the Qatari royal family, has obtained ownership rights over all technology and intellectual property developed at Texas A&M's Qatar campus (TAMUQ). This arrangement is highly unusual compared to traditional university research partnerships where the academic institution typically retains ownership of research outputs. Did you know that Texas A&M has a campus in Qatar which is fully funded and controlled by Qatar? Additionally, Qatar OWNS all the intellectual property developed on campus including sensitive research in computer science and bioengineering. So a top American nuclear engineering… pic.twitter.com/BwgTvGTer0 — Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) January 5, 2024 Critics argue that this level of control essentially makes Texas A&M researchers in Qatar "worker bees" for the Qatari government, a scenario that poses potential risks to U.S. national security​. The controversy escalated following a report by the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP), which detailed how the partnership allowed Qatar unprecedented influence over academic research and the handling of sensitive information. Although Texas A&M officials have denied that any nuclear or weapons-related research takes place at the Qatar campus, the ISGAP report pointed out that the contract between the university and the Qatar Foundation remains opaque, fueling concerns about what Qatar might access through its association with Texas A&M​. HUGE: Texas A&M leaves Qatar after @JudicialWatch exposes massive funding stream from the terrorist-supporting regime. More to be done! https://t.co/8b1mSafAPl pic.twitter.com/ITMlradXFn — Tom Fitton (@TomFitton) February 23, 2024 The partnership has been criticized not only for its potential security risks but also for the ethical implications of associating with a regime that has been accused of supporting terrorist organizations. The controversy was further inflamed by the October 7, 2023, terror attacks in Israel, carried out by Hamas, a group that receives substantial funding from Qatar. Critics argue that by allowing Qatar such influence, Texas A&M may inadvertently be supporting a regime that funds terrorism, thereby compromising its ethical standards. In response to growing concerns, Texas A&M's Board of Regents voted earlier this year to gradually wind down operations at the Doha campus, with the goal of fully closing it by 2028. The decision was made without much public debate, leading to dissatisfaction among faculty and students who were caught off guard by the sudden announcement. The university cited "heightened instability in the Middle East" as a key factor in its decision, although it’s clear that the controversy surrounding the partnership also played a significant role. Despite the denials from Texas A&M officials, including university President Mark Welsh, who has repeatedly asserted that no nuclear research is conducted at the Qatar campus, the details of the partnership remain a subject of intense scrutiny. Welsh's statements have done little to alleviate concerns, as critics demand more transparency and accountability regarding the university’s operations in Qatar​. This ongoing situation at Texas A&M highlights the complex and often problematic nature of international academic partnerships, particularly when they involve countries with contentious political ties. As Texas A&M moves to close its Qatar campus, the broader implications of such partnerships for U.S. national security and academic integrity will likely remain a topic of debate for years to come. The post Texas A&M’s Controversial Partnership with Qatar Foundation Raises Security Concerns appeared first on The Conservative Brief.

‘That's when I started screaming’

'what a difference a new messenger makes'

'This new program that she’s gonna do is pretty far left'

“There’s a lot of opposition to just hearing what President [Donald] Trump has to say,” Elon Musk said at the beginning of his two-hour interview on X with the 45th and would-be 47th president. Musk noted, “I got a letter from the EU Commission, like, saying to not have disinformation during this discussion we’re having. And there’s a lot of attempts to do censorship and to force censorship even on Americans from other countries.” That’s not quite right, but it’s close. The letter was not from the European Commission, but from EU Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton, a French citizen and former CEO of France Telecom. The letter purports to remind Musk of the European Union’s Digital Services Act’s requirements of “all proportionate and effective mitigation measures” regarding “detrimental effects on civic discourse and public security.” In other words, X must censor questions to and answers from an American presidential candidate and keep the EU informed of its censorship procedures. What must be censored? “The amplification of content that promotes hatred, disorder, incitement to violence, or certain instances of disinformation.” Breton reminds Musk of “formal proceedings … already ongoing against X under the [Digital Services Act].” Nice little digital company you’ve got there. Wouldn’t want anything to happen to it. It would surprise America’s Founders not a little that the unelected head of a European multinational organization would feel entitled to demand the words of an American presidential candidate be censored and to be informed of the censorship tribunal’s procedures and decisions. Some Americans, however, might not be surprised at all. They might think Breton is very much on the right track. Case in point: At the White House’s press briefing on Monday (the transcript is available on the White House website), Washington Post reporter Cleve Wootson Jr. said, “I think that misinformation on Twitter is not just a campaign issue. It’s an America issue. What role does the White House or the president have in sort of stopping that or stopping the spread of that or sort of intervening in that? “Some of that was about campaign misinformation, but, you know, it’s a wider thing,” he continued. Wootson didn’t use the verb “censor,” but his question suggested that the government had a moral obligation and a legal right to censor the opposition party’s presidential candidate and to monitor what White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre described as “the responsibilities that social media platforms have when it comes to misinformation, disinformation.” One example of Team Biden’s approach to “misinformation” was the successful attempt to enlist social media companies to suppress dissemination of The New York Post’s October 2020 story on Hunter Biden’s laptop. Playing a key role was Antony Blinken, then a Biden staffer and now secretary of state, who organized the letter signed by 51 former intelligence officials or current CIA consultants charging that the laptop had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian intelligence operation.” Of course, Blinken’s successful attempt to stamp out “disinformation” turned out to be, once the election was safely over, disinformation itself. But it got him the secretary of state job for four years. The public can expect more of the same if Vice President Kamala Harris is elected this fall. “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy,” Gov. Tim Walz, D-Minn., Harris’ vice presidential candidate, told MSNBC in 2022. Liberals tried to excuse Walz on the grounds that he was talking about spreading false information about the dates and procedures of elections, and the First Amendment does not preclude remedies for fraud and libel. But the decision-makers in such cases are supposed to be neutral courts, not partisan officials. But it is long-settled constitutional law that the First Amendment does indeed prohibit censorship of what partisan officials may believe, sincerely or self-servingly, is hate speech or misinformation. On the contrary, the remedy for bad speech, as Thomas Jefferson advised people more than 200 years ago, is more and better speech. And no one should be reassured that Walz actually does understand the First Amendment by his campaign cries of “mind your own damn business” directed against, among other things, banning books. But the only reference to banning books in recent political discourse has been the law of Gov. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., barring sexually explicit books in school libraries from kindergarten to fourth grade. Traditionally, in America, it has been people on the Right who have been most willing to ban books and restrict some personal behaviors. Today, and with the Biden-Harris and Trump-Pence administrations as recent examples, the greater threat to basic freedoms comes from the Left. And not just from Breton and Walz. Harris’ authoritarian instinct has been apparent throughout her career, as Dan McLaughlin argues persuasively in the National Review, citing her efforts to disclose nonprofit groups’ donor lists, her prosecution of a journalist exposing Planned Parenthood employees’ sale of fetal body parts, and her proposals to issue executive orders to ban certain guns, set drug prices, and rewrite immigration laws. The public can count on a vigilant adversarial press to expose any violations of basic freedoms by a Trump-Vance administration. Judging from the press’ complacency with Harris’ refusal to undergo interviews or to say anything about public policy, it cannot count on the same if the Harris-Walz ticket wins. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Who’s for the First Amendment—and Who Isn’t appeared first on The Daily Signal.

All repressive and authoritarian regimes, from Caracas to Pyongyang, suppress speech. Rulers like Russia’s Vladimir Putin or China’s Xi Jinping cannot tolerate truth, as it can threaten their hold on power. Today, free speech is under attack even in the “free” world, and those attacks are undermining democracy at its core. An informed electorate will not always make good decisions, but an uninformed electorate is much easier to manipulate into making bad ones. Western “progressives” see their desired progress as threatened by “mis”- or “dis”-information, which is speech they consider false or motivated by malice. They consider suppression of that kind of speech to be allowable. Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota summed Up that attitude in 2022 when he said, “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech.” But there is. Under our Constitution’s First Amendment, Americans have the freedom to speak the truth or voice their opinions. The price society pays for that freedom is that people can also speak garbage and share reprehensible opinions, but it’s worth it. (Many defended Walz, with one website claiming the clip was “heavily edited” and “out of context,” but he said what he said.) On the immigration debate, as with other contentious issues, the legacy media has torched its credibility over the past decade through obvious bias and partisanship. The simultaneous explosion of alternative media has created a diversity of news sources and unlimited information. How the media frames and presents the facts is now as important as the facts themselves, a weakness which those in power exploit. The Western liberal elite and its allied media believe that mass immigration from the Third World into the First is both inevitable and good. To suppress criticism of this orthodoxy, they conflate reasonable opinions they disagree with—for instance, that immigration levels are too high—with criminal conduct, such as calling for migrants to be assaulted. Legitimate and verifiable observations, for instance, that asylum fraud is widespread, that housing asylum claimants is expensive, or that crime is higher in certain areas heavily populated by migrants, are tarred as hate speech to delegitimize these views. But if we are to debate immigration or any other national policy issue, we must maintain a distinction between free speech—including obnoxious or even hateful sentiments—and conduct that is unlawful. In Britain, recently shaken by public unrest in the wake of the murder of three children, we see how fine a line that can be. In late July, three little girls were killed by a 17-year-old in Southport, England. The assailant turned out to be a British-born child of Rwandan parents, but false rumors about his identity and origin sparked protests, counterprotests, riots, and mayhem across several towns. The Southport stabbings obviously tapped into a wide range of public antipathy in the United Kingdom about the country’s immigration levels, which have continued at an unprecedented scale despite the “Brexit” vote to leave the European Union. Net migration to the U.K. in 2023 was 685,000, or 1% of the population that year alone. The asylum system is swamped. At the extreme end, there is a small percentage of those willing to commit violence. But the bulk of people opposing mass immigration or the costs of spiraling asylum claims are simply expressing a political opinion. In Britain, under an insecure new Labour Party government and prime minister, it seems that the Crown Prosecution Service is throwing the book at anyone involved in counter-immigration protests. British police and the Crown Prosecution Service want to be seen cracking down hard not just on violence but on any anti-immigration speech and sentiment. They are not only prosecuting people who physically attended demonstrations and committed violent acts but are also finding and prosecuting “armchair warriors” who post on social media. Some offenses seem pretty clear. During the unrest, one 53-year-old Englishwoman wrote on Facebook, “Don’t protect the mosques. Blow the mosque up with the adults in it.” She received a 15-month sentence for “sending a communication to convey a threat of death or serious harm.” In another instance, a 20-month sentence was given to Jordan Parlour for “publishing threatening, insulting or abusive material to stir up racial hatred.” He had posted to Facebook that “every man and his dog should smash [the] f— out of Britannia hotel,” where the government was housing asylum applicants. Some of the nonviolent offenses prosecuted in the U.K. are more arbitrary. Jordan Plain, aged 30, got eight months for actions during one protest that mocked people’s race and religion. His behavior was clearly obnoxious and disgraceful, and as the judge said, “grossly offensive.” But the crime he was charged with was that his actions “caused alarm and distress to others.” Under Britain’s Public Order Act, causing “harassment, alarm, or distress” to anyone can get you a fine, and if it is “intentional,” it can be a crime punishable by up to 26 weeks in jail. Britain’s Public Order Act is a broad and powerful tool, wielded at the wide discretion of the Crown Prosecution Service and interpreted by judges. Some have argued that, when it comes to violent unrest, the British police and prosecutors apply a tougher standard on indigenous offenders than on those from immigrant backgrounds. Accusations of such “two-tiered policing” are fiercely denied by the government and its apologists, but videos on social media have shown police tolerating conduct by mobs of pro-Palestine demonstrators that arguably violates the Public Order Act. Protesters hold placards during an “Enough is Enough” demonstration called by activists near a hotel housing immigrant asylum seekers in Aldershot, Hampshire, England, on Aug. 4, 2024. Protesters clashed with British police during rallies as unrest linked to a mass stabbing that killed three young girls spread across the U.K. (Justin Tallis/AFP via Getty Images) The U.S. also has laws that can be used to target conduct (or people) the government disapproves of. But unlike the British—in fact, because of them—we have the powerful protection of the First Amendment as a defense. The Babylon Bee’s joke that “social media posts that will now get you arrested in Britain” rings true. And censorship is growing with our North American neighbors, too. In Mexico, a politician was criminally convicted of “gender-based political violence” for calling a colleague a “man who self-ascribes as a woman.” And Canada’s Online Harms bill has the laudable goals of preventing the sharing of private material without consent and protecting children, but it could also be used to interpret “hateful” content in ways that favor the ruling party. Immigration is one of the top concerns for American voters this November. Rhetoric will intensify, as with any subject people care about. Political ads will do the truth little justice. The American ruling class needs to keep its cool and trust our people to handle free speech. Yes, it is risky, but the alternative—content regulation by the government in collusion with unelected bureaucrats and self-appointed experts—is worse. The BorderLine is a weekly Daily Signal feature examining everything from the unprecedented illegal immigration crisis at the border to immigration’s impact on cities and states throughout the land. We will also shed light on other critical border-related issues such as human trafficking, drug smuggling, terrorism, and more. Read Other BorderLine Columns: NJ Town Prioritizes Protecting Illegal Aliens From ICE Over Public Safety A Successful US Immigration Policy Would Send Venezuelans Home to Rebuild Here’s the Chart on Illegal Immigration That Trump Was Talking About When Shot How Noncitizens Get to Vote in US Elections and How to Stop It Yes, America Is Exceptional. Happy 4th of July! The post How Ruling Elites Continue to Stifle Debate Over Immigration Policy: The BorderLine appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Politico: It Was For the Best that Walz Retired When He Did

Dumb Question: What If Iran Wants to Punish Biden?